JUDGMENT G.T. Nanavati, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The trial Court has rightly held that no clear evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the demand of dowry. Only two witnesses were examined by the prosecution on this point and their evidence was found to be vague. The original informant complainant had not stated a word about demand of dowry in the FIR and even later when his statement was recorded by the police. In absence of any reliable evidence regarding demand of dowry, the accused could not have been convicted under Section 304B I.P.C. or under the Dowry Act.
They were, therefore, rightly acquitted by the trial Court. The High Court was also right in refusing to grant leave against the order of acquittal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.